[Kazan]

It's time to find bugs and get ready for release! Report all bugs in the PCS2 Mantis

RC1 2008-1-13 Exec: http://ferrium.org/media/pcs2-rc1-20080113.zip
DLL Pack: http://ferrium.org/media/pcs2dlls.zip

PS: if you PM either bob and I about a bug, but you don't put it in Mantis, your bug won't get fixed - same goes for posting it in a thread without putting it in mantis.


Build Last Updated: 2008-11-3 10:30 PM

[chief1983]

About how long should it take to save?  Because I've had it open now trying to save this X-Wing model, and it's been on Submodel 2:  detail-2 for about an hour.  I think I need to mantis it.

[Kazan]

email me that model - [email protected]

[Kazan]

your x-wing has way more polygons than any fighter should EVER have

the problem is it's going into an infinite loop due to a floating point error

[edit]
detail 3 managed to cause an infinite recursion in the thread... i dunno how.. but it did...

[Kazan]

updated build, should have less memory leaks, has a fix for the bsp depth counter - it had an accuracy issue, 2 identical polygons will no longer send it into infinite recursion, the anti-infinite recursion check is active on tree generation again and will now also give you an error dialog if it detects a bsp compilation error

[Mav]

Finally! 

So I hope it solves one of my problems...
I had a slightly upturreted Ravana, but converted with the latest PCS 1, it'd crash FS on random occasions (read: randomly at any time between mission start and mission end )

[Bobboau]

About how long should it take to save?  Because I've had it open now trying to save this X-Wing model, and it's been on Submodel 2:  detail-2 for about an hour.  I think I need to mantis it.

there is a floating point error that can cause an infinite recursion error, I have been trying to resolve this issue for a few weeks now, try the build in my sig and tell me if it helps your situation any.

[Kazan]

it only happens in cases where the geometry is bad anyway as far as i can tell... though the source of the error i cannot find precisely

[Bobboau]

we should be able to handle geometry problem gracefully though.

and it's basically caused by floating point errors, we might be able to virtually eliminate it if we used doubles. and had comparisons check for differences too small to be held by floating point numbers.

[Kazan]

that floating point error only happens in cases of bad geometry that we shouldn't handle.

in 2.1 i'll be putting in a system that shows where bad geometry is (lights up the bad polygons in red) and then it's up to the modeler to fix. 

[Water]

that floating point error only happens in cases of bad geometry that we shouldn't handle.

in 2.1 i'll be putting in a system that shows where bad geometry is (lights up the bad polygons in red) and then it's up to the modeler to fix. 

Wow
Although a few instances of bad geometry won't be visible from the exterior. (wireframe mode? - transparent mode?)

[Kazan]

initially the "bad geomtry detection" will only be

Compile a BSP Tree
Visit every leaf node and record every polygon found in "foundlist"
highlist any polygons not in "foundlist" red.

The way the BSP tree compile in PCS2 works - bad geometry is simple truncated (not included). This won't catch inverted normals, etc.  Though i may be able to catch things like that by comparing to adjacent polygons - ie if all 8 surrounding polygons are +x,+y+,z but this polygon is -x,+y+z then mark it "suspect"

[Bobboau]

like I was saying, we should handle bad geometry as gracefully as possible, giving the user a notice that there is bad geometry and showing ware and how bad is a good idea, but sometimes it is just unavoidable. truncation is the worst possible way of handling it, dumping unseperatable geometry into a single node is much better, as it will still work, just not as efficiently, but lets face it, when there is bad geometry it's usually something like two polygons, so if the collision test for that node is twice as expensive, it's hardly going to be noticeable, on the rare occasion that one node is hit.

[Kazan]

it doesn't silently truncate anymore.. it warns.  I also put in code for contained.size()==2 to check if contained[0] centeroid==contained[1] centeroid and if so kill the s-node currently in progress and return a p-node containing the two polygons

that right there fixed compilation of atleast 1 of chief's models (though the hierarchy is still wrong on the model)

[chief1983]

I never really expected any of these to be production ready   but if you needed models that were going to break it, I figured why not go with some of the really crazy stuff we had laying around.  One is an XWA port, another is some ancient cob conversion, and the third, well, Tura's redoing that anyway

Knowing there's something wrong, but still being able to get some kind of useful info about it, or a temporary conversion, will be very useful, thanks a bunch Kaz and Bob.

[Kazan]

I am a very sad camper, I made a change to POF storage in memory that would fix a bunch of memory leaks, and introduced a crash bug that would happen every time with every model when saving to POF... and it took four days for anyone to notice.

New Build posted

[Vasudan Admiral]

People don't just have a big pile of models ready to run through every version of PCS2 to test every aspect of it you know.

I mean, I had just done one such big test in the pre-RC1 build and it took quite a few hours for the relatively few features I was testing. My time is really limited at the moment already as we're approaching uni exam period with assessments still due, and I'm mid backup, format and reinstall of my whole HDD, so repeating the same test on a build that is only a little different from the previous one that worked perfectly isn't terribly high on my priority list. I haven't even had the time to build a simple test model I promised for Taylor yet.

Also, if the time it takes to fix bugs is an issue, consider that as coders you're the ones who know what has changed and so where new bugs might pop up, you know exactly what _should_ happen, and are then in a position to test for them way faster than it is for a tester to go wandering through checking all the features and writing up bug reports with as much info as they can every time they *think* they've found something.
If you can't/don't want to do that, that's fine - but you'll have to be willing for it to take a good deal longer for those bugs to be reported.


That aside, I'm really excited by PCS2 getting to this stage. Well done.

[Scooby_Doo]

Oh i've noticed, but don't have any models ready to converty, just yet.

[TrashMan]

I am a very sad camper, I made a change to POF storage in memory that would fix a bunch of memory leaks, and introduced a crash bug that would happen every time with every model when saving to POF... and it took four days for anyone to notice.

New Build posted

Oh you fixed that allready? Kewl!

DL ing now...

[chief1983]

If it's the 10/18 build, I just thought it was crashing because of my broke-ass models again.